Transparency New Zealand

On April 27^th 2006   I became a board member of a legally incorporated   charitable trust Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand.  We had applied to   IRD and received Donee status and had confirmed that they had no  record of any other  organisation or group of people using that name.

On May 14^th 2006 we   made an application for the trade mark AWINZ    which eventually was registered to us un opposed.

We had set up a website AWINZ.co.nz which stated that we were not the approved organisation and drew attention to the differences between the two.

I was stilling at home   at 9.45 on Friday 2 June 2006 when the phone rang.   The caller identified herself as Vivienne Parre.

She said that she was a lawyer and that we should give up our web site and change our name.  She would not say who she was representing, the phone call was nothing but bullying in my opinion, she said it was urgent that we  complied with her demands , I asked if we could meet to discuss the matter.

In emails from Vivienne Parre sent immediately after wards she made  threats against my Private investigators licence  .

As indicated  by  the emails she had also sought to have us removed from the register  , by her own words she had initiated this action .   Nick  Wright and Neil Wells were also to put Pressure on or web  host who told them to get a high court injunction .

I located her address and in view of her urgency   called in to see her at her home   , she was not in   and responded  by  having her husband Nick Wright serve a  trespass notice.

On 26 June we the board of AWINZ , I personally and my company Verisure  received  a Brookfield’s letter signed By  David Neutze .

Despite the claims of the letter that a trust deed accompanied it  no such document was present ,  The deed was however forwarded  to us By Nick Wright several days later.Having been created By Mr Wells late on  27  June   (  click on  the documents properties to view these details ) .

We asked a number of times if the trustees from both sides coud  meet there by   resolution could be achieved  but we were not taken up on our offer instead on 18 July  a statement of claim was  filed By  David Neutze of Brookfields.

We were to find out later that Mr Wells was at that time in   possession of a document, only days old , which related to Vivienne’s  statement in  her email 4 JUNE “Due to the urgency of the situation I am helping in the meantime in a voluntary capacity and have “gotten the ball rolling” with the Ministry to see your organisation removed from the register as quickly as possible.”

This reply gave an avenue for legal redress  –  we have to wonder  why was this ignored   and why was there no affidavit filed with the  statement of claim.  was it because intimidation was better than an application which relied on proof?

I will write more about these documents later  but it should be noted  that  the trustees in the alleged  deed and the plaintiffs  are not one and the same. In 5 years  we have never been shown a connection    other than by inference.

I had cause to speak to a previous colleague of mine Inspector Dave SIMPSON of the  New Zealand Police  , he told me that Neil Wells had engaged a woman lawyer  who was working for him pro bono.

After receiving this information I checked with the law society  and found that  Vivienne Parre /Wright did not have a practicing certificate.  I  asked her about it and  she got one the next day  15 August 2006 She never  had any further involvement that I was aware of  with the  matter but  Nick Wright took over.. more on him later.

Until now   I was uncertain as to Vivienne Parres involvement  but  it has been clarified by her  former Husband who has  stated in official documents   “After some months, as Mr Wells … together with the other trustees of AWINZ at the time, sought legal counsel. Initial contact was made by Mr Wells to Ms Vivienne Parre (who was at that time married to Mr Wright). Ms Parre was employed at Brookfields at the time, and the instruction in turn came to Brookfields.”

My enquiries at the time  had ascertained that Vivienne Parre  was not working at Brookfields  , at least she was not shown on the staff list  and the receptionist was of the opinion that she did not work there.

Vivienne Wrights  marriage with Nick Wright came to an end  and she disappeared off  the scene    she had changed her name to Vivienne HOLM and was working   first with Bell Gully   and then  as an , associate, Chen Palmer .

Vivienne Holm is now employed by the  ministry for  the environment.

Her former Husband Nick Wright is a resource management  lawyer  no doubt a very useful connection  for both.

I find it somewhat Ironic that on  a  Bell Gully document it said  of  Vivienne Holm “Vivienne’s key practice areas include resource management and planning, with particular expertise on local government matters”

Does that expertise  mean   covering up for private enterprise such as AWINZ  which  leaches on to  public funds for private pecuniary gain ?  And why if here was a legitimate claim could there  not  be any evidence of it ?

Tomorrow  I  will   write about Mr Neutze and question    what obligations do lawyers have to ensure  that documents that  they  sign and documents  they file are factual?

I will then    cover the involvement of  former Mayor  WYN Hoadley

I  have just made complaints against a number of lawyers and  had wanted to make a complaint against Brookfield’s  lawyers with the law society  but found  that because they were an unincorporated law firm I had no redress against them.  I have  written to  Brookfields , ( their partners  and their CEO) in the past and been ignored .

Just last night I found that   Brookfield’s had blocked my  email address , guess  that is how you deal with issues  first you  bully then you throw up a brick wall. That is where blogs come in .

I am a whistle blower  I didn’t mean to be  , I simply  asked  some  simple questions of the duly elected council members of Waitakere city council  and of MAF  with regards to  an organisation which  had law enforcement ability under the animal welfare act. This  “ organisation ‘ transpired to   be just one man  a man who had written the legislation and   had advised  on it at select committee level. He was effectively running his  private SPCA  as a parasite off public resources  using staff vehicles and resources  paid for  by the ratepayers  and  collecting   the   profits and banking it into an account only he had access to  and held in the name of his alias.. animal welfare institute of new Zealand.

In my opinion  it would make a perfect fraud  it is so clever that even the best  Grisham  novel  could not have dreamt up this plot. The secret of the  success was a false application which would  result in enforcing the animal welfare law and  by virtue of section 171 see the proceeds of prosecution returned to the approved organisation.

This was not coincidental   it had been plotted way back at least in 1994 and put into a business plan in 1996. The  in 1997 the writer of the business plan  had the luxury of writhing the legislation for his business plan and was  employed by  the select committee to see it through the transitional stage and pass into law.

The false application for approved  status was  false because  no trust exited  and no deed had been signed.   The assurances in paragraph 10.4   were   that the   trust would be registered and become a legal entity in its own right.   It was later to transpire that many other   things in this application were total bull shit too.

MAF and the minister sought to clarify   the existence of AWINZ and as these communications show , proof was avoided.( I  eventually  received the full documents  if any one wants them I can  direct you to them )

Early of 2001  the minster approved  the application for AWINZ  Inc  to become a law enforcement authority under the act  which the person making the application for AWINZ had written.

Strangely enough   in searching the  MAF files and in  official information act requests, there was never any correspondence from anyone else   who said that Mr Wells,( the person acting on behalf of the applicant )  could act on their behalf  or on behalf of any other group everything  ws  done by  him in the name of the fictitious AWINZ.

In 2006  I was approached by some people in my capacity as a private Investigator, they had concerns about  the existence or rather lack of existence of AWINZ.  There were two  memoranda of understanding  one with MAF and one with the previous manager dog and stock control Waitakere city .  Mr Wells  who had signed on behalf of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand   with Waitakere  was to take the place of Mr Didovich  who had   signed  apparently without  the authority of the  city.    And so in this agreement with council Mr Wells had obligations  to both sides of the agreement something the council Lawyer Denis Sheard  had no issue with.

There was not a register on which AWINZ  showed    and so to  prove conclusively  that we had not  overlooked the existence  we incorporated a trust  by the identical name  and were successful.

Our trust was incorporated on 27 April 2006 in the name of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.  The incorporated number is 1809454. It is searchable on the register maintained by the MED.

Proving that AWINZ categorically did not exist   and not being able to locate any group of identifiable persons who called themselves AWINZ at that time, we put up our  web page   stating that we were the only   legal entity by that name   and having achieved Donee status and  having ascertained  that no one else using that name   had IRD donee status we advertised that too.

Now the dates are very important   remember  we were fully  incorporated, That is  our  AWINZ was a legal entity in its own right  on 27 APRIL 2006  by virtue of this statute ( see section 13 )    .

You have to wonder how a group  which  informally   formed on 10 May  2006  without any  documentation,  can have  a  claim to having used that name  prior to 27 April 2006  …  Never  fear Brookfields is here  they are so efficient  that  they   can do anything   and on this occasion  they used Vivienne Parre  a  partners wife ( Nick Wright)    who did  not hold a practicing certificate.. to commence the intimidation …………… to be continued….

In 2006 I questioned the existence of   one of only two private law enforcement authorities in New Zealand  – The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand.(AWINZ )

As a result of attempting to seek accountability for a law enforcement organisation which did not have any independent legal  existence of its own I was   sued   through Brookfield’s Lawyers.

For 5 years I have been  subjected to the most extraordinary  litigation   which truly shows how innovative Brookfield’s can be.

Brookfield’s  have been able to be successful in court   by

• using a Un registered lawyer
• Plaintiffs with  no standing  (The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue)
• Making a  fabricated claim,
• using  nonexistent evidence
• avoiding discovery
• Not filing affidavits
• Used innovative  means to manipulate the court proceedings
• To incur huge costs to the innocent parties
• Demanded  payment and refused offers
• Had my  defence  of truth  and honest opinion struck out
• cleverly skipping the   formal proof hearing( which saved the embarrassment of not being  able to come  up with the evidence in the court. )
• Had  a decision made against me for  continuing to defame  when no determination for defamation had  ever been made
• Prevented me from placing evidence before the court that  would show that their   client committed perjury
• Blocked every means   that I had open to me to seek redress through the court.

As can be seen by the list  this is  going to take some time to  expand on  .

What is so spectacular about this case is that it proves that any formal structure we have in New Zealand is entirely pointless as Brookfield’s will   strive to win no matter what.

Brookfield’s have been so creative that I thought I  should  let the world know  how they operate  their   values  and ethical standing  surely sets a new  standards for Lawyers .

I  did write to Brook fields and asked if we could meet   to discuss this But  they are so right  that   they have nothing to  fear, see  Brookfield’s reply

Tomorrow  I   will  add to the post   it will be good  unbelievable reading.  I can promise you that.

I find it somewhat surprising that a director of a company does not know  what the company is worth.

Both Anthony John MCCULLAGH and Stephen Mark LAWRENCE are the receivers for Tony Tay film Limited   . they are also directors of Auckland film studio in which Tony Tay film is  the majority share holder.

Yet as Directors  of the  Auckland film studio ( in which the Auckland rate payers have a significant stake )    they were unaware of  the value of the  company and   incorrectly represented the value in the  receivers first report

This morning   I received a phone call from mr Lawrence who advised me that   a new report would be published   and sent me a copy of the  corrected values.  he also   told me that I was  on a witch hunt.

the amended report will be filed in 20 days time after the ir request to  remove the first report and substitute it with a second is   advertised in the public notices.

So here  is a preview of the  amended figures

the question has to be   How can directors  and receivers  get it so wrong what checking  do they do on  the reported figures.. none by all accounts.

These guys have been directors of Auckland film  since 28 Feb 2011  ,  Their interest is not in  the long-term survival of  Auckland film studios    their interest is to secure as many assets as possible for the  person appointing them  who in this case is the person charged with running the studios.

If he has  sent the  corporate undertakers in   what  interest has he got in the  long-term   health and well-being of  Auckland film..    to me all it looks a bit   counter productive.

If I had a company   in which the job of   2/3 of the directors  was to plunder it for assets I would be concerned.

I would be further concerned if  the  person I was employing  as on site manager of the  operation was the person who had engaged these directors  and they are effectively working for him and then  make an error of a mere $6 mil

I’m not in this for a witch  hunt ..   but since no one in council is asking the  questions  that I  have  you wonder   about who actually cares  about  our assets.

Guess we can all pay a few more $ in rates. as long as the rich get richer  the  plebs can keep paying.

Yesterday I sent the following to the receivers of  Tony Tay film

Good morning Lisa

I refer to the invitation to bring  matters to the receivers attention  (11 on the   receivers first report )

I wish to advise you of the information I have  uncovered and is  posted on my blog Auckland film studios public losses private gains ?

In particular the massive discrepancies  with regards  the value  that  the receivers place on the  Auckland film studios  and the value which   the council place on it  through public documents.

Lisa replied

Hi Grace

The error in the estimated statement of realisation attached to our first report was bought to our attention just yesterday.  We are currently awaiting advice as to whether we can file a second report with the appropriate changes or if we must file an amended first report which takes 20 working days to effect.

Regards

Lisa

I provided  further infomation as follows

Thanks Lisa

it is really strange    that Kieran FITZSIMMONS is the   lender  to the company he is a director and shareholder of  .  he also has  shared  business shareholdings  through rehoboth   in Jireh entertainment  and SUCCESSFUL TRADING (NZ) LIMITED

Kieran FITZSIMMONS is also the   on site manager of  Auckland film  studios   .  It appears odd to outsiders that a shareholder should give a loan to  the company he is a director  of    and then   by having  given the company the loan place it  in receivership.  That surely must implicate on his directors duties  of solvency of the company  and to me it appears  like a  circular equation.

I do hope someone looks at why the loan was given  by a director through    the minority shareholder , it appears to me that if the director had wished to introduce more funds into the  company he was both a shareholder and director of  then   he could have done this by increasing his shareholding.

As Tony Tay  Film   Limited   doesn’t   have any other assets    you have to wonder if the loan was given to    keep the company solvent when it was not.

As some one  who deals with companies all the time  this   loan to your own company and then liquidating it  seems odd.

Kieran Fitzsimons is also the onsite manager of Auckland film   Studios  . the day to day operation and success of the  studios  is directly in his hands.    How can he be acting in a responsible manner for  Auckland film studio when he is seeking to   wind up the very company he is a director  of.

You have to wonder   why money was introduced into a company when  it was not reflected in a change in the shareholding. Or was to off set money transferred out of the company at the same time  if so where did it go to

I am also advising the IRD of my concerns.

In summary

Tony Tay film Limited    is share holder of Auckland  film studios

Until going into receivership   Fitzsimmons and  Tay were directors of Auckland film Studios

Fitzsimmons is still  the general manager of  the studios   charged with the day to day operations

Tony Tay film  has two share holders and two directors

It took over the  previous share holding in Auckland film  from the Tony Tay trust.

Tony Tay film is owned by Tony Tay trust 85% and REHOBOTH ENTERTAINMENT (NZ  15%

Tony Tay trust  and REHOBOTH ENTERTAINMENT  each have 50 % share holdings in

SUCCESSFUL TRADING (NZ) LIMITED  and JIREH ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED

Fitzsimmons was   the general manager of Tony Tay   Group

The loan was  registered to   Auckland film studios  by  Rehoboth  whose director and shareholder is also a director of  Auckland film studio  .  By giving that loan  he  know that  Auckland film studio was insolvent  and  as a director should not have received a loan  the company could not afford  especially since tony Tay trust  already had    other companies  going into liquidation and receivership . (JIREH Huka  ltd  march 2010 )

Just bringing this to your attention  .

Regards

Grace Haden

Much of New Zealand corruption is based on the lack of due diligence   and ignorance .  we are looking into the Auckland film studios at  the moment   and  give this as an  example.

Mayor Bob Harvey was  deputy chair of the  film commission  knew of the  govt grants  which were coming out  . He got council to invest some 7 million in   fruit packing sheds  . (Is film a core business of council? And why are they  into film  when they are looking at privatizing water? )

Consultants brought in to ” advise ” the council  set up a company. The council eventually became minority share holder in this company ( later called Auckland film studios ) .  the majority shareholder  was  Tony Tay trust Limited  which  later sold to a new company Tony Tay film  Limited  of  which Tony Tay  Trust Ltd was the majority shareholder and REHOBOTH ENTERTAINMENT (NZ) LIMITED was the minority shareholder  and  whose director, Kieran Fitzsimmons was the onsite manager of the complex and who is also general manager  of the Tony Tay Group.

The original  minute from council stated “That the Council agrees to sell all the land situated at 40 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson being all the land comprised in Certificates of Title 363/45, 360/233,261/10, 819/28, 820/275, 1128/265, 1126/181 and 126A/59 (North Auckland Registry), and being the land and buildings currently comprising the Henderson Valley Studios to the proposed joint-venture company (currently referred to as Studio Company) subject to a minimum of $6 million private cash equity being invested in the proposed joint-venture company and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise approval of these private investors.”

The two properties were transferred into the company (which was set up by the councils consultants who were acting in a less than transparent manner)   as   the councils  shareholding, the properties were grouped into  two titles.

We have not gone to the expense of  checking to see how the historic titles and   current titles   relate to each other or if  land was” Lost” in this transaction .  What is also strange is that on the land transfer  files  both the hickory  property   and the 40 Henderson valley road property  are shown as 40 Henderson valley road  but there is no rates valuation for this address.

With  the   merging of  councils the  public asset has been transferred to  Auckland city . The Auckland film   This coincides with the time that   Tony Tay film has been put into receivership by its shareholder  Rehoboth  claiming  that it is owed  1.4 mil .

While it is odd that a shareholder should lend money to  the company and then   place the  company into receivership to   get the loan back  , It is also odd  to look at the figures involved and  see  such massive discrepancies. This has to be questioned   when public money is at risk and the share holder and the   company are as intrinsically entwined as Mr Kieran Fitzsimmons is  with the Tony Tay group.

According to official council records ( page 95)  the council values the complex in its entirety at about 10.975 Million  and shows a   loss of several million over the past few years.

The rates valuation for the property is  still shown as  is  13 mil. And this is for only part of the property  other parts are shown  as  10-14 Hickory ave but  we have been  unable to find a rating for the larger part of the property being 40 Henderson valley road.

The Receivers First Report identify Tony Tay  film assets as being  in excess  of  10 million . The only investment this company has  is the   55.6% shareholding of the Auckland film studio which is now valued according to council as 10.975 Million  .

Somehow   my  computer has spat the dummy  trying to work out these sums  and   no rational person could possibly accept that     a 55.6% shareholding of an asset worth 10.975 Million   can equal  $10,140,300

The only conclusion we  can come to is that, while the public have suffered a loss  in their investment the majority shareholders are being creative in clawing back   as much as they can.

We doubt if council will do an in-depth investigation into this   as they are not big on due diligence.    After all they can just ask the multitude to dig a bit deeper in their pockets and extract a few more rates dollars   to cover the short fall.

We predict that  What  will happen is that more public money will be   poured into this  venture  we the rate payers will lose while    the private investors  who have been involved in the  day by day operation of the facility  look at maximising  profit and minimising  risk. And this wont be considered corrupt at all  basically because there is not a single person who suffers a loss ( we all do )   there is no complainant and no  one will be prepared to look at  the  more shady aspects of this receivership.

Further related blogs Baptist connection with movie industry

How to invest using public funds

Official Information act request Auckland film studios and the  reply in

how transparent is the super city ?

http://accountabilitynz.wordpress.com/